Calling all spiritual atheist.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Yes I would argue something must in some sense exist in order to believe or not believe in it. What exists in reference to the Ufrack is what is said about it in the works it appears in. The same goes for God. This is the only concrete manifestations of these so called beings—the stories they appear in. The very fact that we must reference these works when speaking about them, rather than reference an actual supernatural being, I think is proof enough of my claim.

I agree that believing in such ideas or not is a matter of taste, but not only that, of culture and tradition. But it is only the ideological that draw non-existent lines in non-existent sand. The ideas never create lines.

a reply to: Annee

NO. I was assimilated into god belief. God is taught.

So you sweep your experience under some magical carpet? Our experiences define us.

Is god/religion/belief involved when you plug a toaster into an electric socket? No.

Neither is some all encompassing consciousness.

hi guys,

see now I would consider myself a strong atheist as I just cannot comprehend the idea that a single thinking 'entity' for want of a better word, has the absolute power and knowledge to create the universe and our world. That and I find a lot of religions to be largely based on hypocrisy, but then again each to their own, believe what you like. So yeah id say im a strong atheist but I am very superstitious and to a degree do believe in some 'spiritual' entities/energies. I have no idea why I guess its just an innate belief, but yeah It is kinda weird saying that I don't believe in 'god' so to speak but I do believe in the possible existence of other 'spiritual' beings/aspects, e.g clairvoyance, reincarnation etc.

a reply to: Aphorism

Yes I would argue something must in some sense exist in order to believe or not believe in it. What exists in reference to the Ufrack is what is said about it in the works it appears in.

The Ufrack appears in no works. Outside of my posts on this website, the Ufrack doesn't exist in any capacity at all.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

The Ufrack appears in no works. Outside of my posts on this website, the Ufrack doesn't exist in any capacity at all.

At least you are honest about it.

a reply to: Aphorism

I agree that believing in such ideas or not is a matter of taste, but not only that, of culture and tradition. But it is only the ideological that draw non-existent lines in non-existent sand. The ideas never create lines.

But you just drew a line in that non existent sand by expressing your disbelief/disregard/disdain for that non existent sand. As I explained before. And that's what defines your understanding and self-image. And that's what helps define my understanding of you.

As I said:

At that point, the presence of a new idea creates a line. Those who like it, and those who do not. Those who care, and those who do not. Those who have experienced it, those who have not. Those who invest in its study, and those who do not. Ideas create lines, and it seems to me that you are questioning that line. God creates a line, between those who believe and those who do not believe. And as with all animal behavior, we use that in order to lump ourselves into likeminded groups, for security...and other things. It's not right, and it's not wrong. It simply is, and has been for millenia. The more ideas we have, the more lines we draw, the more involved the network gets, and the more we understand who we are.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

a reply to: AfterInfinity
You said God creates a line and ideas create lines. I am neither of the two.

So you've demonstrated my point, and refuted your own.

You're welcome.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: AfterInfinity
You said God creates a line and ideas create lines. I am neither of the two.

So you've demonstrated my point, and refuted your own.

You're welcome.

You are using ideas even as you type. You are using ideas in order to express your thoughts, your emotions, and your understanding. None of these things exist outside of your skull, which means you rely on language both written and spoken in order to communicate them. Now, as a result, you are employing such means in order to establish your position in the matter. In other words, you have an opinion. You cannot have an opinion and remain neutral, otherwise, your opinion is perfectly pointless. You may as well keep your mouth shut for all the good it does.

You expressed an opinion.

I agree that believing in such ideas or not is a matter of taste, but not only that, of culture and tradition. But it is only the ideological that draw non-existent lines in non-existent sand. The ideas never create lines.

That is your opinion. And in having such an opinion, you have done exactly that which you believed to be nonexistent. You drew a line, and you took your place. Argue all you like, but that's what you just did.

Anyway, I'm tired of this nonsense. Adios.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Annee

NO. I was assimilated into god belief. God is taught.

So you sweep your experience under some magical carpet? Our experiences define us.

I agree. I was assimilated/indoctrinated as a child to believe God the Creator. Speaking of magical carpets.

Thankfully I grew up and used my intelligence to move beyond that experience.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

As an atheist, I do not believe in a creator in the religious sense.

However, I can fully admit to the possibility our species being the result of DNA manipulation by some alien species millions of years ago.

And I personally believe we all come from, and go to, the same energy that is Life in the universe. Whether it's sentient or not, I couldn't say. But it's impartial and doesn't care who or what you are. It just accepts. It's you,and you're it.

I have no evidence to any of what I just wrote, of course, it's just what I think. Or, maybe,what I hope.

But I certainly do not believe in God , in the traditional sense. Simply because the idea of heaven and hell are too improbably and not logical , whereas everything we see in the universe is logical and rational.

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: Stormdancer777

As an atheist, I do not believe in a creator in the religious sense.

However, I can fully admit to the possibility our species being the result of DNA manipulation by some alien species millions of years ago.

As an atheist myself I can fully admit to the possibility of our species being the result of actions carried out by an invisible entity commonly referred to as a god. I do not believe such a thing though, due to the total lack of evidence to support the claims.
I'm also open to the alien manipulation thing, but again do not believe it due to a similar lack of evidence.

To be clear, are you saying you believe aliens manipulated our DNA or just it's a possibility?
Why is the idea of gods not a possibility but alien DNA manipulation is possible?

I do not believe in gods but I do not say there is no possible chance that they exist, because that would require the thing I don't do...faith.
It appears on first glance that you espouse some personal faith that gods do not exist as you have not stated "I can fully admit the possibility of gods" - possibility is the reasoned ground which theists are unable to shoot down like a dirty 'A' word (atheist) - you however, open yourself up to ridicule with your own apparent version of personal faith.

originally posted by: noonebutme

And I personally believe we all come from, and go to, the same energy that is Life in the universe. Whether it's sentient or not, I couldn't say. But it's impartial and doesn't care who or what you are. It just accepts. It's you,and you're it.

You and I believe in the same thing, energy -- I would not call it faith.

Energy is science. We believe there is a possible real scientific explanation at the root of what we believe or perhaps a better word is think.

That is not "faith" belief.

Science is limited to KNOWN knowledge that can be repeat tested. There have been many scientific discoveries that were once unknown. The argument something doesn't exist because it can't be proven by the scientific "repeat" method is extremely limiting.

a reply to: grainofsand

No, I'm not saying aliens manipulated our DNA to make us what we are now. I'm saying I am open to that possibility. However, I see no evidence of that either.

For me, that "possibility" is more plausible that the notion of a traditional religious god being our creator, as it were.

I'm a science person and I need to see evidence or have some form of empirical testing to demonstrate such a notion. And again,while I am open to the idea, there's no evidence , scientifically speaking, we were manipulated by aliens.

a reply to: noonebutme
I guess we're both singing from the same song sheet then

a reply to: Annee

I completely agree with you.

If I implied faith in my post, I certainly didn't mean to. As I sated in a previous post, I'm a scientific person. And to me, the concept of some form of universal energy makes more sense than biased, finitely limited beings who govern our fate. Just doesn't seem logical to me.

But energy, now that is universal, constant and unbiased. It just "is" and doesn't care who or what you are. Now, I'm not saying that's a carte Blanche to act and behave in any immoral way. Who knows what happens when you die. Maybe you energy level is such that your doomed to repeat the same things until your state is elevated. No idea. But even that sounds far too "made up" and controlled by some unseen parent figure.

No, I reckon we go back to whatever the great river of Life/Energy is that runs through the universe.

Can anyone give a consistant definition for the word or concept that is 'spirituality'?

As it seems like everyone that uses that word has a different definition for it which renders it completely usesless.

a reply to: Prezbo369
Anything that is a bit woo woo and lacking evidence perhaps?

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Can anyone give a consistant definition for the word or concept that is 'spirituality'?

As it seems like everyone that uses that word has a different definition for it which renders it completely usesless.

This was addressed in previous posts.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Then Annee said the meaning of the word "spiritual" is evolving, which seems to be true, however as Woodcarver implied if a word evolves to the point where it no longer has a clear or universally understood meaning, it loses its usefulness as a word.

Or it enhances and expands the meaning of a word.

Perception is always interesting. It's the basis of my avatar: "Am I looking in or am I looking out"

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Can anyone give a consistant definition for the word or concept that is 'spirituality'?

As it seems like everyone that uses that word has a different definition for it which renders it completely usesless.

reply byby: Annee

This was addressed in previous posts.

Wow really?

Perhaps you could give me a TL;DR?

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Spiritual But Not Religious.

That's me.

Like one other poster wrote: Its about being at one with all that you see. Nature.

I believe the World to be one Physical/Spiritual Sphere. Or at least it was 'Whole' until we built over most of it and knocked our 'Energy Resource' down. The Rain Water is Spiritual. The Air that we breathe is Spiritual.